text:
What weight and balance form should I use for my checkride?
I am studying for private pilot checkride and saw this form in an Oral Exam. Can you tell me where I can get this form online? If not, is there a better form for expiration and W&B data?

There's no standard form for this information, if that's what you're asking. Pilots usually make their own W&B forms, get one from their instructor, or copy them from the POH. The inspection dates are just a list, there's nothing special there and the aircraft owner will usually have a list somewhere already. The simplest thing is probably to make your own sheet and go over it with your instructor, to make sure you have all the relevant information.

FWIW, if you Google "online weight and balance" you'll find several programs for various aircraft.

Thanks for your input. Issue/Expiration part is easy to make. For the planes I use, there are excel worksheets where we only need to know weights and gas information to get outputs. I will make/find a printed version of that.

@ferviate83 just to reiterate an important point: make sure those worksheets are specific to that particular airplane, and not merely generic.  it is unlikely that two airplanes of the same model will have the exact same weight data from "the shop" that is needed to be legally correct.

Use the same form you use every other time you go fly with your instructor.
If you're at the point of preparing for a check-ride and you have never had a weight and balance form before, you may want to sue your flight instructor (...kidding, kind of).
If I approach a new trainer-airplane for the first time, I find out whether someone has made a weight and balance form for the plane yet and ask for a copy.  If not, one can be created using the data in the AFM in Excel or other spreadsheet program.
I like to make mine fully-automated as much as possible for day-to-day usage, but they can still be filled in manually for the purpose of demonstrating the understanding to an examiner.
If you use LibreOffice Calc, you can download the one I made for the plane I use.

If you try to open it with other software, it will look screwed up, but you can still get the idea.
The light blue shaded fields are the only ones that can have data entered into them.  The graph is created based on the weight data, and it automatically subtracts the fuel burn based on the flight duration.  So the two connected dots are the takeoff and landing C.G./Weight combinations.
This was all done from scratch using the AFM's data.  It takes some work, but it is worth it.  Your instructor should have something like this made already.

Doesn't LibreOffice have an option to export to . pdf?

@TomMcW It does indeed.  I was planning on adding a screenshot since it wouldn't have to be hosted.

As Pondlife mentions in the comments there is no officially accepted form per say but you must insure that the values you use to calculate WB are out of the POH for THE SPECIFIC aircraft you are flying that day. For your checkride you will be required to bring along all the paperwork for the plane which includes the POH. Since a given airframe may have small alterations like avionics variations or other modifications that effect empty weight and CG and the such the numbers from plane to plane may differ.
Some POH's may have example worksheets like this one for the Piper Warrior (see page 6-11).

No matter the worksheet you use you should check the published procedure for calculating WB in the specific POH. Granted most of the procedures will be the same you should follow them none the less (you may be asked about how you arrived at a given value). My flight school had a form, I was comfortable with it so thats the one I used.

The video you linked (which I also watched many times before my check ride) is a bit dated but still relevant. You should note that the dates he is pointing to on that form are taken out of the log books. Your DPE may (mine did) ask you to show him the date in the actual logs that quick reference is not an official document. You should go over the POH and logs of the aircraft before your checkride to make sure that everything is in line and up to date. Strictly speaking you can bust your check ride if you show up in an aircraft that is not airworthy.
Real Wold Scenario: Every DPE varies the oral exam a bit so here is the WB stuff I had to answer. Before I even got there my DPE gave me his weight and had me to the WB for our XC flight (full fuel). He went over the numbers when I got there, I had the luxury of checking that a few times before showing up. After that he created a scenario for me (flights with friends etc). Had me run some WB to make sure we could make it, take off performance as well. He also asked me some questions about moving stuff around in the plane to shift CG if I needed to, as well as the effects of a far aft and far forward CG on the flight characteristics of the plane.


text:
Why do Vx and Vy coalesce at an airplane's absolute ceiling?
I'm struggling to figure out why that is the case. I'm trying to determine why the best angle of climb speed equals to best rate of climb speed at the absolute ceiling on airplanes.

Can you elaborate? What are you talking about? Vertical speed? Airspeed? What aircraft? Also please put your question in the body of your post.

Vx as in the best angle of climb speed and Vy as in best rate of climb speed, so airspeed. Airliners was the aircraft I was directing this towards. Sorry.

Presumably indicated speeds for best angle and best rate of climb.

I think the answer to your question lies in the fact that approaching the absolute ceiling, the terms "climb rate" and "angle of climb", in regards to an airspeed, begin to lose their meanings.
As a plane approaches the absolute ceiling, the climb rate will be zero or close to zero, so the best angle of climb approaches 0 degrees above the horizontal plane as well making your "best-rate" speed also be your "best angle" speed; both the rate of climb and thus the angle of climb being, effectively, zero.
Any speed which yields less than the best rate of climb (if you want to call it that) of zero at the absolute ceiling would be causing a descent, and thus a negative angle of climb as well making any speed other than the best rate of climb speed also not be the best angle of climb speed, which is why that is the altitude at which best-rate and best-angle speeds coalesce.

I agree with the answer in that if you've reached your ceiling then you're not going up; Vx, Vy.

Yeah, exactly.  Your best rate and angle of climb basically become, "not descending", and you just so happen to be going a certain speed therefore, they've coalesced.  This may be a bit of a sensationalist answer for some people with advanced knowledge like design engineers, but I think for the average Joe, this way of explaining it will help them gain an understanding and "wrap their mind around" the concept.

The absolute ceiling is defined as the altitude where climb speed drops to zero. This implies that there is only one speed at which the airplane does not lose altitude. Flying any faster or slower will result in higher drag than thrust, and the airplane will start to sink. Only at the optimum climb speed will the airplane stay at zero sink speed. Now that there is only one speed at which both the climb angle (which is now zero) and the climb speed (which is also zero) reach their maximum, both speeds must coalesce.

Climb optima for different thrust loadings (own work). Flight speed is plotted on the X axis while climb speed is plotted on the left Y axis. Green lines show sink speed while blue lines show thrust (right Y axis).
This graph shows the idealized optima of best climb speed and best climb angle (steepest climb) for different thrust loadings of a turbofan-powered aircraft (full explanation here). Note that the lines for the two optima cross at zero climb speed. It is no coincidence that the sink speed curve over flight speed for zero thrust loading looks like the glide polar of a glider.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Sport pilot upgrade to private pilot
I have a sport pilot license and fly my own SLSA (Special Light Sport Aircraft). I have all the required logbook hours signed off by my CFI for the PPL and 120 hours as PIC plus 80 dual student hours. Once I pass the PPL written test and obtain a 3rd class medical, would I be required to take a full oral test and check ride to obtain a PPL?
Notes:

SLSA: Special Light Sport Aircraft
CFI:  Certificated Flight Instructor
PIC:  Pilot In Command
PPL:  Private Pilot License

EDIT: Thanks for responding. I do have 3 night flying hours + 3 hours under the hood. I did all the required private pilot flying and ground school hours before deciding to go the light sport route. I'm thinking about about getting the private pilot license if and when the 3rd class medical is eliminated as a requirement. So, my question is - what would I be tested on for the private pilot checkride? Or would a checkride even be required?

which legislation are we speaking about?

Is this in the US (FAA)?

PPL requirements are mentioned here: What are the requirements to take the private pilot check ride?

It sounds like you have almost all of the training for your PPL done.  You will just have to make sure you have a valid FAA medical, and then take the written exam, as well as the checkride.  Having a PPL is definitely an improvement over a sport!

By the way, pilots are "certificated", not certified.

Yes.  As you are seeking a new grade of pilot certificate, you will have to conform to the requirements under 61.103.

I believe PPL also requires some night flying time (at least the 141 school I am at does). I believe Sport Pilot License is not valid at night so you may have to gain some night landings and hours to go for the check ride as well. However I do see that you have all the hours signed off so I will assume this includes night hours.
But AFAIK you will need to pass the written, oral and check ride to get the PPL.
As per your updates this is what you will be checked on for your check ride. Its a bit dated but this video has some nice coverage on what you may get on your oral exam. If you have the Jeppesen study materials you should have some good lists of what you will find. I did find this in the FAR

§61.103   Eligibility requirements: General.
  To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
(a) Be at least 17 years of age for a rating in other than a glider or balloon.
(b) Be at least 16 years of age for a rating in a glider or balloon.
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.
(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who:
(1) Conducted the training or reviewed the person's home study on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.105(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
(2) Certified that the person is prepared for the required knowledge test.
(e) Pass the required knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.105(b) of this part.
(f) Receive flight training and a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who:
(1) Conducted the training in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
(2) Certified that the person is prepared for the required practical test.
(g) Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought before applying for the practical test.
(h) Pass a practical test on the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought.
(i) Comply with the appropriate sections of this part that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
(j) Hold a U.S. student pilot certificate, sport pilot certificate, or recreational pilot certificate.

In regards to section H you have to pass the practical for the PPL specifically so it would seem you will be retested. Although part J would allude to the fact that your SPC comes in here it seems that it just counts in place of a student pilot certificate.

What jurisdiction is this please?

United States FAA

@Simon, since the question was tagged "FAA regulations," I think it is clear that this answer applies to the USA.

@SpongeBob Ah, missed the tag.  Sorry.

@Simon, it actually looks like your comment was posted before the tag was added.  So it's my bad for being sassy.  It just seems like people ask that question very often when it usually doesn't need to be asked.

@SpongeBob when speaking of regulations is instead critical to ask that question, since regulations can be wildly different depending on the authority making them.

Unfortunately, there is no reduction in the examination requirements to go from a Sport Pilot to Private Pilot. You will need to take the written, oral, and practical tests as if you just held a Student Pilot certificate. The Practical Test Standards for Private Pilot include a table which can reduce the maneuvers you need to demonstrate on the practical test based on certificates already held - but they all require a Private Pilot or higher.
All of your solo/PIC hours as a Sport Pilot count for the requirements for the Private Pilot certificate, as do any dual time with a CFI or CFII. Any dual time with someone who only has a CFIS (Sport Pilot instructor) certificate does not qualify as experience for the Private Pilot certificate.
The full requirements for you to take the Private Pilot practical test are available in this answer.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How useful were the wings and tail of Jean-Pierre Blanchard's balloon?

In 1784, Jean-Pierre Blanchard fitted a hand-powered propeller to a balloon, the first recorded means of propulsion carried aloft. In 1785, he crossed the English Channel in a balloon equipped with flapping wings for propulsion and a birdlike tail for steering.[49] ~ Wikipedia

I was curious how much utility wings and a tail could have for a balloon, after reading that account. I expect the level of propulsion was quite small... but could it still be enough to be useful? Perhaps for landings, or trying to change between air currents? I'm not sure if he moved fast enough that the tail would be useful for steering?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How much thrust can a balloon generate with wings?
I have heard that some balloons have been made with wings, angled such that they generate some forward thrust during the ascent. Balloons can also theoretically generate thrust with wings during a descent.
This made me curious about how much thrust one might produce. I suspect the drag of the balloon will ensure it would not be a useful amount.
In general, I would think of a 10m diameter balloon, using hydrogen, or hot-air if your prefer. I think a common ascent rate is 5m/s, so if you could get as much as a 1:1 glide ratio, that'd be 5m/s of forward velocity.

This concept is used very successfully in autonomous underwater gliders. As you say, the low density of air requires much larger volumes wich causes excessive drag. I am not aware of a successful application in air.

Variable buoyancy propulsion for UAV is also researched.


text:
Why do large U.S. airports still use an old and difficult-to-understand ATIS voice?
Almost all large airports in the U.S. use the ATIS voice heard in this video, and have been for at least the past 20 years. The voice itself is not nearly as "crisp" and clear as most other large international airports today. Here are examples from Rio de Janeiro and Amsterdam's international airports.
Interestingly, from the research I have done, the voice used in the U.S. comes from a text-to-speech technology called DECtalk launched way back in 1984. The voice used in the ATIS is called "Huge Harry." In other words, this stuff is old technology. Why isn't a more modern voice used?

Hey better a robot voice than a human one.  Many years ago I heard a NWS hurricane warning recording in a southeast Texas so thick I literally could not understand more than a few words of what was being said.  PS about 20 years ago NWS had some robots they had trained to speed in a New England / Cape Cod type accent-- that was supremely annoying as well!

But- re the actual question -- how could the answer be anything other than "they just haven't gotten around to improving or upgrading it yet?"

("speed" = "speak")

I can understand it may be complicated to change, but better voice synthesizers for ATIS purposes do exist and have for many years.

Probably for the same reason that many aircraft use 8086 and 80186 CPUs or carbureted engines.
Getting something new tested and approved for aviation is a long, slow, expensive process because so many lives depend on it. In many cases, it's a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And once it has been tested to aviation standards, it is expensive to procure.  So when whatever manager sets his priorities for his limited budget, "an ATIS that sounds nicer" doesn't usually make the cut if the existing setup works & meets the requirements.

Wonder what the DV was for. I can't fix what I don't know is broken...

Because the equipment/software/license has been bought and paid for, and it isn't inoperative. No big conspiracy about it.
File enough ASRS reports calling the voice a safety hazard and something might change.

Do you have further details on exactly which system is used? It would be useful to know if an actual synthesizer unit is still used, or if it has already been replaced long ago but maintained the same voice for commonality reasons.

I do not, sorry.


text:
What is the technical reason behind why the FAA standard uses a 1000 ft aiming point and much larger runway numbers than the ICAO standard?

FAA and ICAO standards, respectively.
If the larger FAA runway numbers are for easier identification, why wouldn't ICAO also adopt  this feature to enhance safety?

Are the numbers really bigger? Your top (U.S.) image is zoomed in a lot more than the bottom (ICAO) image. This might account for some or all of the perceived size difference.

Yes, they are. The U.S. deviates from ICAO's Annex 14 with regard to the numbers.


text:
Why does the "retard" command on the Airbus sometimes continue after the thrust levers are already at idle?
There are many examples where the PF will place the thrust levers at idle and the "retard" command will continue sounding. Here are some examples: 1 and 2. Note that I am not referring to the singular "retard" command that will sound between 20 and 10 ft regardless of the A/THR status or thrust lever position (here is an example of that).

Simply because the callout always occurs at 20 ft radio height, regardless of the position of the levers. Therefore, idling the levers also does not interrupt the callout. The callout is only a reminder to the pilots, not an order according to the A320 Flight Crew Training Manual:

But what determines how often your hear the RETARD callout? In the linked YouTube videos, you can hear it 5 times, 3 times and once respectively.

@Bianfable Probably the model of aircraft. Some aircraft only call it once.

"Note that I am not referring to the singular 'retard' command that will sound between 20 and 10 ft regardless of the A/THR status or thrust lever position..." I believe that is what your answer is referring to. The question is why it will sound even after 20ft with the levers at idle (as seen in the videos).

@CharlesNicholson I suspect the callout simply repeats because the levers in the videos you posted are not yet fully in the idle position.

@stefanlinden Did you watch the videos? That's the main point of the question, they are at idle. This only seems to occur on the A320 (and not any other Airbus airplane).

To answer your question, multiple RETARD callouts tend to happen when the descent rate is very low, so on especially smooth landings.


text:
Is it an acceptable practice to take off in a microburst?
This video has been posted on Youtube:

Strong winds are blowing at the airfield, pilots are taking off aircraft to prevent them being damaged. However I noticed that gliders have been successfully kept on the ground.
Is that standard practice to take off and fly to try to escape a burst? Is that even allowed and/or sensible?

They have pilots in them, and the pilots kept a cool enough head to start the engine and take off. Had they not done so you're correct, they wouldn't take off, they would be blown along the ground (maybe lifted into the air, but not in any controlled fashion)

Actually, I'm not sure, the engine might already have been running for all of them.

If you look closely, you can see the pilot sitting in one of the planes, and you can clearly see the engines running.

A theory about this: when your airfield is suddenly hit by a very strong wind and your tail dragging plane isn't tied down, would it be best to protect the plane by staying in and using the controls to keep the wings level, etc? (I'm guessing, maybe someone here has an opinion.)

"Tow 2" seemed to have the prop running in alternating directions, but that could be (and likely is) an artifact of its rotational speed and the frame rate of the camera.

The rolling shutter effect along with the paper airplane-like movement tripped me up; it looked like the propeller switched direction and like the airplanes where unmanned. It's hard to see the pilots. On SO this question would die here, as the author made a mistake, so the question is wrong. If you would like to edit it to save it, please go ahead. Thanks for the great comments :)

So, should this question be here?  It's sort of invalid because the planes are piloted.

Well, we have an excellent answer. What should the question be? :)

Great question, @mins! Love the response I got here from all of you!

The airfield in the video is KAFF, the Air Force Academy air base. Everybody you see in the video are air force cadets or retired Air Force pilots (in the tows).
There is a credible thread about this over on Reddit where one commenter says:

I'm very curious as to how you got this video, i was under the impression it never left the airfield.
This happened in April 2014, this past year. The weather is absolute crap here, especially for soaring. Well... we get good weather sometimes. Anyway, it's not uncommon for those TG-16A's to go up with a 25 knot gust... But i digress.
The cadets were pushing in because winds were out of limits and the weather was getting worse... and BAM! Microburst.
This microburst hit right next to the airfield. The tower spotted it early, gave a verbal warning "look out..." and cadets are trained to do the following: grab a wing (glider) and turn broadside into the wind and put the spoilers out. The tows were not so easy... nor lucky. Their takeoff speed is about 50 knots, and none of them were powered up when they lifted off the ground, to give you an idea of how bad the wind was. Their only maneuver is to face into the wind and pray they dont actually take off. The tows that took off left for COS airport... it took another 30 minutes of holding gliders before the tower let the cadets start moving the gliders.
As for taking off... 55 kt gusts are the highest the Academy has had in a long time. Considering there were a half-dozen other aircraft within 100 ft of the tows, along with people (i.e. cadets around/in the gliders) if he was moving too far from his position in the queue, the safest action is to get some altitude and try and leave the microburst. Or at the very least put some altitude and distance in between himself and the cadets and aircraft. You saw how slow the tows in the air were moving relative to the ground... those were HARSH winds.
At about 0:20, you can see a cadet hanging onto the wing of a glider on the bottom of a screen. This wind was scary. I don't know if anyone was up at the time, but full tempo ops can be up to 5 tows and 8 gliders... on a standard afternoon training day 3 tows and 4 or 5 gliders is normal. It looks like they were already pushing the gliders to the hangar...

The commenter later clarified his "not powered up" phrasing:

That would be my poor phrasing. Throttled up, rather. That's why they kept hitting the ground for a little bit.

Everything else is accurate (relatively so, those Cub (?) tow planes can take off much less than 50kts).
From your question:

Taking off against the wind seems impossible because where does it get its thrust? And with the wind also seems impossible because all the wind is traveling at the same speed as the airplane, which to me should make the airplane drop like a stone.

Taking off against (into) the wind is the most preferable way to get an airplane into the air. It reduces the amount of ground speed that you need in order to take off. Aircraft work according to the airflow over the wings, if the airflow is great enough and the angle of attack is right, then the aircraft flies.
Taking off with the wind is also possible, but it extends your ground roll since you need to get to the same relative speed with respect to the wind before the airplane will fly.
Look at it this way, lets say you have the wind at your back and you take off on a bike. As you gain speed there is a point at which there will feel like there is no wind since you have the same speed as the wind at your back. As you keep going faster you'll start to feel like the wind is blowing at you, but slower. The amount of wind blowing at you is your air speed, the speed you are actually going is your ground speed.
Airplanes work the same way, taking off down wind requires the aircraft to get a greater ground speed (but the same air speed) to take off. After the airplane starts moving the only thing that really matters is the speed of the relative air flowing over the wings. When somebody says they need 50 kts to take off, they mean 50kts of airspeed, or 50kts of air flowing over the wings.

Now, a little commentary. There are two aircraft that take off in the video, one goes to the left which is up wind and the other goes to the right which is down wind. The upwind pilot has a much easier time controlling the aircraft since they don't need as much ground speed to keep it in control.
The downwind pilot almost bought the farm, and I'm pretty sure when he got back on the ground he needed a change of pants and a new aircraft seat. He's having a lot more difficulty controlling the aircraft because of the low airspeed. It doesn't look like he had much of a choice to go in that direction though, so I'd buy that man a beer if I ever met him just to hear the story.
The thing to take away from this is those pilots are retired Air Force pilots with thousands of hours of experience in high performance aircraft. The average pilot would be a stain on the tarmac in similar conditions.

To answer your edited question:

Is that standard practice to take off and fly to try to escape a burst? Is that even allowed and/or sensible?

No, it is not standard practice. Larger aircraft would probably not have this issue but the aircraft in the video all weigh less than 1000lbs, a little more with the pilots and fuel probably but not much. Pilots are trained specifically to avoid microbursts if possible because they are very dangerous things. A search of the NTSB accident database for the keyword "microburst" provides 73 accident reports with that mentioned, 21 with fatalities.
Is it allowed? No, airports will halt operations when low level wind shear is detected, however its not to say an aircraft isn't already in its takeoff run when the shear is detected. The highest priority is to stay on the ground. The aircraft in the video however don't have a choice, the wind speed they encountered is greater than their take-off speed, they were probably going to fly or tumbleweed.
CFR 91.3(b) gives a pilot full authority to deviate from any ATC instruction or rule in an emergency. An emergency does not need to be declared first, a pilots responsibility is Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If all your attention is on flying (or keeping from flying) you can be in an emergency without telling ATC. I'm sure these pilots did not face any disciplinary or regulatory actions as the result of taking off from the parking ramp.

Just curious: would there be any sort of investigation or something due to these pilots took off without first getting clearance? I mean, I'm sure they'd be cleared of any wrongdoing ("why did you take off?"  "I physically had no other choice -- my only choice was in how I got back to the ground"), but would it still be looked at as an incident?

Ron, you have such incredible sources to build the best answers!

Note that while the comment is incorrect that the aircraft were not powered when they took off, but they almost certainly were not powered when they got the microburst warning. A puff of smoke is visible around the fourth tow at the beginning of the video suggesting it just started the engine.

@yshavit I doubt it, CFR 91.3(b) means they can pretty much do whatever they need to in an emergency. They (as far as I can tell) didn't declare one, but I'd say that this more than qualifies. Pilots need not communicate that there is an emergency first, the primary responsibility is to fly the plane, communication is priority #3.

Considering that this took place at the Air Force Academy (or any airport, for that matter), there were probably few to no people around who didn't understand that every plane around was in some state of emergency - communicating that fact was rather unnecessary.

@yshavit After some investigation, I found that Doss Aviation is the operator of the PA-18-150's in the video. I can't find any incident reports regarding those aircraft in the NTSB database.

@RonBeyer Ah, nice research! Sorry I can't give you a second upvote for it. :) But thank you.

Taking off against the wind seems impossible

Taking off (and landing) "against the wind" (head-wind) is actually easier, is a daily practice and manufacturers recommend it over taking off "with the wind" (tail-wind) or with a cross-wind.
Aircraft care about their airspeed, not their ground speed. Generally speaking, the greater the airspeed, the greater the lift the aircraft's wings can produce (speed plays the major part of the lift equation, as it is squared).
Counter intuitively, as the head wind speed is going up, the takeoff distance actually shortens. Small aircraft can literally takeoff and land "on the spot" if there is a strong enough head wind:

That's true and this is the idea of a wind tunnel, but I believe the sentence should be read as taking off without engine in the direction opposed to the wind

I think the OP understood that. But in the video, it looks at first glance like the planes aren't powered up, which leaves a paradox. Basically, the wind should be carrying the planes along with it -- meaning that the airplane's speed relative to the air is close to zero. Looks like the other answer addressed that by pointing out that there were indeed pilots in the airplanes, who were able to throttle up the engine and fly the planes out.

Off topic: Apparently the video comes from a camcorder and has not been properly deinterlaced when posted.


text:
What is the name of the figure consisting of a slow revolution around longitudinal axis?
"An airplane performing one slow revolution around its longitudinal axis is performing one of these..."
This was a clue on Jeopardy today. The contestant responded with, "What is a barrel roll?" which I contend is incorrect. But he earned $2000 for it.
My response would have been: "What is an aileron roll?" Is he correct, am I correct, or are we both correct?

What is an Aileron Roll?

You are correct, but should we really expect that level of precision from the entertainment business or the media?

I have lost all faith in Alex Trebek [shakes head in disappointment]

To be fair, a slow aileron roll executed by a slower, lower performance aircraft will also not be merely a revolution about the aircraft's longitudinal axis since a true aileron roll involves maneuvering to maintain altitude.

As long the longitudinal axis stays with the aircraft (as every sane pilot will strive for), any roll will be correct since it does not exclude other manouevres.


text:
Does my PPL need to be checked again when I move to another country?
If I acquire my PPL in one country and move to another one, is there any procedure to evaluate that PPL and get it in another country?
Did anyone have an experience with that? I'm interested in general rules, if any, and to know what would happen when moving from EU to USA or USA to EU, in particular.
Also, what about renting an airplane in another country? Would someone need to reevaluate my license?

It completely depends on where you live for the time being and were you want to move to. If you for example stay inside the European Union your PPL is still valid. Would you clarify your question by adding information about the locations?

First of all i wanted to know if there are some general rules... And, if someone have specific example what had happened in real world.
In particular, maybe it would be useful to know what would happen in EU to USA or USA to EU moving?

We have a few questions already on this, you could start with this one for example.

@mariotanenbaum there are no general rules, except "check local authorities at your destination".

Most places won't rent you an aircraft unless you do a check ride with one of their guys first, regardless of your licence

You have to take your logbook and your license to civil aviation of that country and then they will request a confirmation from the country that you have got your license from to be sure that if your license is still valid. After confirmation you have to join any ATO and undergo flight and ground training on the plane category that you have your licensee on (You might not need it but they must are the one who ask for an examiner for you and you can't apply by yourself) and then you must do the oral exam and also a flight test on your single engine type.Remember for converting any license, only your flight hours will be accepted and some of your exams and not your ppl flight test.In some countries you must also do 4 exams which mostly are Nav,Met,Hp,and Law but in some other countries can be only Law . It is depend to the rules of the country that you are willing to get you license new from .For us to EU you must only do the ppl law exam. All this Rules applied for a valid ppl license .Good Luck

Do you have any references to FAA regulations that support your answer?

I am saying that on my friend experience. We were together in a flight school and then he decided to leave go home after ppl and continue his aviation route in US. He was from US.

"For EU to US you must only do the ppl law exam..." Did you mean "for US to EU"? In the US, there is no law exam, and you can get a US PPL without any test if you hold a valid ICAO one.


text:
What factors determine the direction of the resultant force vector?
The overall aerodynamic force acting on a wing that is creating lift is not straight upward but is inclined backward. We usually consider the vertical and horizontal axes of the force separately. Lift is defined as the portion of the resultant force that is perpendicular to the relative wind, and induced drag is the portion parallel with it. The slope of the angle of the resultant force is the L/D ratio. This ratio changes with angle of attack as shown in the following diagram. As the AoA increases this vector leans further back creating a different L/D ratio (more drag for the same amount of lift).

Then looking from the wing's point of view, the portion of the RF perpendicular to the chord is the normal force (N) and the part parallel to it is the axial force (A). We can see that the the angle of the RF with respect to the wing chord is less affected by changes in AoA.

I've never seen a chart that graphs out the N/A relationship. Does this ratio change at all with AoA or is it a fixed property of the wing design? If it is not fixed, what dynamic factors (speed, AoA, etc.) affect the direction of the resultant force?

R = L + D, should be basic vector math.

@RonBeyer ??  R squared = L squared + D squared.  I'm not asking about the trigonometry. I'm asking about the physics of induced drag.

@RonBeyer I re-worded it. Maybe it makes more sense what I'm asking.

@TomMcW your drawings are a bit misleading. In the first two diagrams, you set your R force perpendicular to the wing chord. In the last diagram, you set it at an angle. These diagrams do not represent an equivalent situation, is this intentional?

@sanchises No. It's not intentional that it appears perpendicular. The angles are really exaggerated. The lift force is generally a lot higher than the drag force but if I tried to graph it at all accurately the angles would be too small to see.

@sanchises I had actually made the top drawings a long time ago for another answer

OK perhaps you ought to exaggerate the drag force in the first two drawings too  then to make sure it's clear what you're asking.

I hope you don't mind, I've edited your images to make them a bit smaller. My understanding: This force (total aerodynamic force) is the result of the difference of pressure between the airfoil sides and the reaction to the downwash created by this pressure difference. Resolution into lift and induced drag is then purely arbitrary, these forces have no reality per se. The direction thus depends on the factors creating pressure (e.g. Bernoulli's principle) and reaction (Newton's 3rd law of motion). Related.

@TomMcW The change in resultant in N/A will be the same as that of the resultant vector in L/D case- they're the same. You're seeing difference because in case of the L/D case, the angle of attack gets added to the change. The only difference is that the co-ordinate system is changed. For L/D case, the angle of attack, alpha, gets added progressively to the resultant vector.

@mins Thanks for the edit. I am stuck using my phone for all this and with the apps I use I can never figure out how to reduce the size. Several months ago I came to that realization that lift and induced drag were the same force broken down into axes that make sense to he pilot.

@aeroalias I was reading a paper on the net that was showing from the chord axis and it seemed in the author's drawings that the angle was very close to the same for different AoA's. I didn't know of it was just an artifact of having to cheat the angles to make a usable diagram butI started to wonder if it was static. After hours of insomniac calculations and reading last night I came to the conclusion that L/D and N/A moved proportionately but the N/A just had the AoA subtracted from it.

@aeroalias But mathematically it is possible for them to move in opposite directions. For example, at 0° AoA they are the same. But if at 3° AoA the L/D shifts back 5° when you subtract the AoA, the N/A vector shifts forward. I'm not sure if that behavior actually occurs. That's sort of what the question is about. Looking at things from the perspective of the chord can help me understand some of the physics.

Yes, the resulting force is not perpendicular to the wing's chord but can point either way, slightly forward and backward. The very first polar charts which were published show this nicely, because those plots were true polar plots and used the wing chord as the reference orientation for 0°.

Illustration on page 196 of Otto Lilienthal's "Der Vogelflug als Grundlage der Fliegekunst" showing measurements on model wings as polar plots (source). Note the left part: Here the forces are plotted in the wing section's coordinate system.
The N/A relationship was covered by the work of Edward C. Polhamus, who did a lot of research on this at NACA Langley and published several papers with equations for calculating the leading edge thrust, the force which helps to tilt the resultant force vector forward.

While I don't have the required background to develop, I feel the induced angle of attack, resulting from the downwash, which creates the induced drag (which in turn makes the difference between the lift component and the whole aerodynamic force) is a main point of the answer. ai(y0)=atan{-w(y0)/V∞} seems the equation that defines this difference, as published here. See also.

@mins Sheesh, I'll have to delve into peter's and your links when I've had more sleep! When we say it's the downwash that creates the induced drag I always feel that the term is a little confusing. If you look at it in Newtonian terms the drag portion of the angle must be caused by "forward-wash." In other words the wing imparts momentum to the air not only downward but slightly forward. It's the same movement of air, like you said in your other comment, but the word downwash was a point of confusion for me when I was trying to understand induced drag.

@Peter I don't speak German so I used Google Translate on the labels. Did the best I could with the results it gave me. Let me know if something could be worded better. I couldn't figure out where "normal" was supposed to go in that one label. The sentence Google gave me didn't make sense. Oddly enough, that's the only word on the page that's the same in both languages but I couldn't figure out the grammar.

@TomMcW: Thanks a lot for the edit! Normal means perpendicular, this is for the 90° vector only. What probably also needs explaining is the "rotierend gemessen" part. Lilienthal used a special machine which swung small wings around on a horizontal arm as a poor man's wind tunnel, and that is where the results are from.

@TomMcW: The downwash starts by the tip vortexes, the air going from the bottom side to the up side of the wing. So the downwash isn't anyway a simple move downwards. You'll find such elements in the links provided.

The angle of attack changes the L/D ratio, yes. Image the angle increased to 90 degrees (coming straight from the bottom). I suppose you could call that 100% lift and 0% drag.
Not sure how useful that is... From another point of view, that's 100% drag and 0% lift. Pugachev's Cobra.

This answers the first question, "Does this ratio change at all with AoA or is it a fixed property of the wing design?" This doesn't anwer the second part of the question, "If it is not fixed, what dynamic factors (speed, AoA, etc.) affect the direction of the resultant force?".


text:
When may I change my transponder code to 1200 when being handled by ATC?
When am I allowed to change my transponder code to 1200?
Is it after clearing the boundary of regulatory airspace (ie. airspace requiring radio contact and an operating transponder)?

Why are you so desperate to change to 1200? When squawking a discreet code (e.g. one given by ATC), they will keep an eye on you on the radar - making sure you do not collide with other traffic or enter restricted airspaces. When squawking 1200, they lose this ability, and you essentially lose a very strong safety net that could prevent dangerous situations.

@J.Hougaard changing to 1200 and dropping radar service doesn't make you invisible to ATC.  One great reason to drop ATC is for area maneuvers.  It can be annoying to have to get permission every time you want to turn. So, for lessons; that's one reason.

@RyanMortensen Sure, you are not invisible. But you are anonymous. Even if ATC can see two 1200 tracks on a collision course, there is not much they can do about it, since they do not know who it is. As for "getting permission every time you want to turn", I don't see any correlation between squawking a discreet code and being under ATC control. If you are in uncontrolled airspace, you can "do as you want" - no matter what your transponder code is.

@RyanMortensen You can request/advise (depending on previous instructions) to “maneuver” while staying on VFRFF. This frees you from needing to request/advise every turn, climb/descent, etc. while still getting traffic and being in contact if ATC needs to move or restrict you for some reason. They will often assume this if you’re headed into a known practice area.

@StephenS I don't expect a VFR pilot to request permission for altitude or heading changes unless they were explicitly instructed to fly a specific heading or at a specific altitude. Aside from that case, you're VFR, you do what you want. If you're in a congested area an advisory might be appreciated prior to an altitude change but it isn't required.

@randomhead I’ve been on VFRFF before, no restrictions, and within a few seconds of making an unexpected turn or climb/descent, the controller called me to ask what I was doing—and maybe make sure I was okay. So, I always try to advise (not request) first.

ATC will tell you something like, "N1234R radar service terminated. Squawk VFR. Frequency change approved; good day" which you will repeat back as an instruction.
You do not change from the assigned transponder code until instructed.
If you're in a hurry to get away from ATC, you may request to terminate radar service as soon as you are out of their regulatory airspace.

Normally, as a courtesy, you terminate radar service by notifying ATC in a handshake as in Mortensen's answer. In most cases this never happens, because as soon as you leave their zone ATC will terminate service unilaterally--you don't have to ask for it.
If you are flying under IFR rules in any airspace except G, you must have a clearance and be using the code currently assigned to you under the clearance.
If you are flying VFR, you normally use code 1200. You can change to 1200 whenever you want, but if you previously had a clearance, you will immediately lose your clearance when you switch to 1200.
Therefore, the general principle is that you can switch to 1200 whenever you are flying VFR and do not require a clearance to be where you are. In class B, C, and D you are required to be in "voice contact" with ATC, which could be construed to require a handoff. In class E you are only required to be in voice contact if you are in the vicinity of a towered airport, in which case you have to be in voice contact with the tower (not ATC). So, basically what this means is that if you are in G or E (not near an airport) you can go to 1200 whenever you want. In B, C, D you should always do signoffs ("Cessna 5678 Golf terminating radar service"). If you are in an area that requires a clearance, you must get permission to terminate radar service.
So, your own statement is basically correct: once you leave a radio-contact required area, you are free to go VFR. Note that if you abandon a flight plan and go VFR without notifying ATC, even if you are in a radio-free zone, they can get miffed about that because it messes up their rack, so it is always a good practice to explicitly terminate your service/flight plan before switching to VFR and going numberless.
Example: You are flying VFR through a restricted military operating area and have a clearance to do so. You must stay on code as long as you are in the restricted area, because you require a clearance to be there.

@RyanMortensen State the reg, paragraph number, that requires a pilot flying VFR to get ATC permission to switch from an assigned code to 1200.

It may not be your intention, but your wording suggests that pilots can just switch from a squawk assigned by ATC to 1200 if they feel like it, which isn't the case (see 14 CFR 91.123(b)). And you might want to modify your last example: VFR flights don't need a clearance to enter a MOA.

@RyanMortensen Where is it stated that you cannot fly IFR in class G airspace? If true, it must be a rule specific to the FAA. IFR in class G happens daily at my local airport.

@J.Hougaard this may be a great "primary question" for someone to post.  I left the possibility that I am mistaken open as a possibility up there ^^.  Turns out I was wrong indeed; it is legal.  However, the research I just did revealed a general consensus by those discussing it that was, "it is legal until you get violated by 91.13 for careless or reckless operation." +1 for calling that out.

@TylerDurden Pondlife is right.  ATC providing you with a squawk code and telling you to use it is an instruction, and it has no void time.  You need to tell them you want to drop service or wait for them to tell you that they are dropping service.

@Pondlife I said a RESTRICTED military operating area.

There's no such thing as a "restricted MOA"; there are restricted areas, and there are MOAs, and the rules are different for each one. See section 4 of the AIM.

@Pondlife I meant a restricted area for military use, which I called an "MOA" sorry for the confusion. As far as terminating radar service, a pilot can terminate it at any time by switching to 1200. The CFR you cite is only when deviating from a required clearance and it is the pilot's intention to maintain that clearance. Radar service is just that: a SERVICE, not a requirement.

@TylerDurden It is a service in which you receive ATC instructions.  It isn't about it being a voluntary service, it's about the agreement with ATC to follow their instructions. See: When has a pilot legally accepted an ATC clearance or instruction?.  Being in an area where ATC contact isn't required does not give a pilot the authority to go AWOL after agreeing to use a certain transponder code. A new agreement is then required for 1200.

@RyanMortensen That is not true. It's called a service because that is what it is. I have already read Pondlife's opinions and do not think they are legally supported in any way. Just as one example, if I am in Class E I can turn off my radio and I do not have to even listen to ATC at all if I don't want to. There is no legal requirement to talk to ATC if you are out of a voice contact zone.

@TylerDurden once again, it isn't about a requirement to talk to ATC where you are.  It is about following the ATC instructions that you have already accepted.  Also, once again, 14 CFR 91.123(b) "(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."  Squawking a specific code is an instruction. ATC control is exercised in class E airspace.

@RyanMortensen Radar service is not an "instruction". A pilot may drop radar service whenever they want, except in Class A or other specially restricted airspace.


text:
What are the pilot rating requirements for amphibians?
I know that both land and sea planes require pilot ratings in order to act as pilot-in-command.
What is the requirement to act as pilot-in-command of an amphibian?
Is there a third rating or just seaplane and land ratings?
What about flights taking off and landing exclusively on either water or land but not both?

I can't quote the regs (or I would answer instead of comment) but my understanding is you can fly it as long as your flight (landing) is consistent with your certificate. I know someone who owns an amphibian (http://www.lakeamphib.com/lakeamphib.htm) and only has an ASEL, currently working on his ASES, and while it's possible he's flying it illegally, neither his CFI nor the Lake factory have raised an issue with him and both are aware of the situation.

To the best of my understanding, frogs are not allowed to fly planes.  Newts, I'm less sure about. *rimshot*

Just to update your terminology:  A pilot has a Pilot Certificate, not a license.  Right now it contains an endorsement for ASEL.  After seaplane training the same Certificate will contain an additional endorsement: ASES.  So no need for a separate "license", just multiple endorsements on his certificate.  And if he is only using the Lake Amphib to land on runways, he is legal (I think.  Not sure of this last statement).

@SkipMiller: my bad, where I used to live (Australia) it was indeed called a "licence", just forgot about that distinction. Thanks!

Actially @SkipMiller, those are ratings

Thank you @rbp this questions nomenclature is completely wrong.  Sea operations do not get granted by endorsements in the FAA system.  Those would be ratings.

According to the Seaplane Pilots Association you can operate an amphibious airplane on hard-surface runways with a land class rating but need a seaplane class rating to take off or land on water, and vice versa.
As far as the regs, it seems that the airplane can simply be considered either land or seaplane class depending on how you are operating it.

any regulations about taking off?

I was gonna answer, but this is correct, so no need!

@ratchetfreak I would assume you need the appropriate rating (Land or Sea) for either takeoff or landings. (Or two pilots - one qualified for Land and the other for Sea...)

so to move a plane from hard to water (or vice versa) you need both types of ratings in the cockpit, (either in one pilot or in 2)?

@ratchetfreak that's a good question. It's pretty common for seaplanes with straight floats to switch to wheels during the winter, and the process involves landing on grass with the floats so the shop can remove them. To reverse it, the shop puts the floats back on and the airplane takes off from land using a wheeled dolly. So... is a land plane rating required in that case? :)

@egid What, no video? :-)

@voretaq7 Wow! Do you need an ASET (airplane - single engine - truck) rating for that? Awesome... never seen that.

@egid Wouldn't it be better to land the floatplane near a boat dock and haul it out on dollies?

@DJClayworth that only works if there is a runway next to the seaplane base. Like, right next to. The procedure is used when swapping out floats for wheels - so in some locations, like Renton, WA (KRNT) what you suggest is the best option. In others, you do what you can.

@voretaq7 that would be the Paul Revere rating - one if by land, two if by sea. shows himself to the door

"As far as the regs, it seems that the airplane can simply be considered either land or seaplane class depending on how you are operating it." I would have to see a citation from FAA regs or an FAA legal opinion before I believe you can operate an aircraft certified as a seaplane without a seaplane rating, regardless of the type of floats.

@JuanJimenez Feel free to request a FSDO interpretation - then you can post it here and it would be a great addition to the site. I would upvote the answer! I've heard there was already a FSDO interpration about this circulated on the Internet, but I haven't been able to find a copy. Rest assured though, it's true!

@TypeIA Great idea, let us know when you hear from them.

@JuanJimenez I won't be doing that. Not sure if you misunderstood or are being sarcastic. Either way, no need to reply.

An amphibian may be flown as a land only aircraft without the sea endorsement.  A pilot must not have the intention to land or take-off from water.

Hi! It would be great if you could give a link to the regulations or some other authoritative source.

Not authoritative, but from a seaplane association: FAQ ~ Airman Issues


text:
What is the minimum distance allowed between planes in flight, in Europe?
What is the minimum vertical and horizontal distance allowed between aircraft operating in European airspace?
(This linked question is the US-specific equivalent of what I am asking about European regulations for ease of reference)

I don't understand: you ask something about european regulation precising this is US specific.

@ManuH he’s linking to a question that answers for the US in an attempt make it clear that this question isn’t a duplicate.

It's kind of a duplicate (but not really). The base separation minima are set internationally by ICAO Doc 4444, and countries generally conform. My understanding is any deviations are on a country-by-country basis, I don't think there's any EASA/Eurocontrol-wide deviation from ICAO.

Separation minima are pretty universal. There are only minor differences in Europe compared to the US rules you mention. Keep in mind every European country has its own rules, so there is no European standard as such.

See also: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27699/how-are-aircraft-separated-at-high-altitude and

Separation minima in Europe are pretty much identical to the rest of the world, since almost all countries base their aviation regulations on ICAO recommendations.
To summarize:
The minimum vertical separation is 1000 ft. In theory, above FL290, the minimum is 2000 ft, but since all European countries have implemented reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM), the 1000 ft. rule applies all the way up to FL410.
When horizontal separation is based on surveillance (such as radar), the minimum separation generally is 5 nautical miles (NM). Around larger airports with excellent radar coverage and at lower altitudes (where planes tend to fly slower), the minimum is routinely reduced to 3 NM. On final approach path to some runways, it can be reduced further, typically to 2.5 NM. They can get even closer in case of parallel runway operations, but that's a bit too complex to cover here. Special rules apply to mitigate the risk of wake turbulence. For example, the separation between a light aircraft flying behind a medium aircraft can never be reduced below 5 NM.
Horizontal separation based on position reports (no radar coverage) is pretty rare, but still in use in some areas. Here, the minimum horizontal separation is typically not defined as a distance, but instead can be based on a navigation aid (for example, two aircraft on VOR radials diverging by at least 15 degrees, and one of them is at least 15 NM from the VOR, are separated). Another option is lateral separation, which is basically when aircraft operating in different areas are defined to be separated, regardless of the actual distance between them (for example, an aircraft flying along airway A is separated from an aircraft flying along airway B, since airway A and B never cross). Rules for lateral separation are defined locally.
Finally, in the vicinity of aerodromes, separation can be reduced further (often referred to as "visual separation"). Essentially, if the tower controller has two aircraft in sight, and can determine visually that there is no risk of collision, they are separated (regardless of the actual distance between them).
Remember that all the separation minima above only apply in areas where ATC is required to provide separation. If flying in class D airspace, for example, (used in many control zones and terminal areas) ATC is not required to separate VFR traffic from IFR traffic. Instead, ATC will pass traffic information, allowing the pilots to visually recognise other traffic on their path, and take appropriate action to avoid a risk of collision in accordance with the rules of the air.

Almost fully correct, but RVSM airspace beginns from FL290 which means up to and including FL290 1000ft is always sufficient

@pcfreakxx You are right. Thanks


text:
Can I log flight time while I am a student?
If I were to obtain a private pilot certificate, would I acquire flight hours during my training, or would I have to wait until I am certificated to obtain flight hours?
If I can log hours during training, then about how many do you think I could obtain while training to earn my private pilot certificate?

PPL requires a minimum of 40 hours of flight time, all counts towards your fight hours.  Realistically, most students need between 50 and 60 before obtaining their certificate.

Welcome to aviation.SE! When you ask questions about logging, regulations or procedures please always tell us which country or regulations you're asking about. There are often significant differences in different places. The [tour] might also be useful if you're new to the site.

Training time is logged as PU/T 'pilot under training' and counts toward your total time.  I always log check rides and the like as PU/T

Yes, your time you acquire during training is loggable time and counts toward your total flight time.
You will only log pilot-in-command during solo flight and during the checkride.  After passing your checkride, you will log pilot-in-command during further training in the same category and class of aircraft as well as flights during which you act as pilot-in-command.
The minimum legal requirement under part 61 for an ASEL private pilot is 40 hours.  I would shoot for efficiency and earn your certificate with the least amount of training you can, and any time you would like to pay out of pocket beyond that, fly without an instructor on board.


text:
Where does the factor 1.3 for Vapp come from?
The approach speed Vapp is usually given as 1.3 * Vs0, or 1.3 times the stall speed in landing configuration.
Why 1.3? What created a consensus of 1.3 * Vs0 as the generally accepted textbook approach speed?

I don't have time to pull proper research, but it's looking light it may just have been an arbitrary "130% of stall speed in the landing configuration", safety margin from 1941 Aviation Regs that got translated into 1.3 Vs0 in the next few years' editions and have stuck since.

@ryan Mortensen thanks, very interesting!

1.3 Vso is not a universal rule even for the same plane.  First is extra weight, which requires higher AOA for adequate lift at the same speed, or greater speed at the same AOA. Approach a little faster if heavy.  Next is CG.  If CG is near limits, a little extra speed will help aerodynamic trim as you slow down.  Finally, there is weather. Gusting winds or wind gradient (head wind dropping as you near the ground) should make the pilot consider adding a few knots to approach speed as well.
The best policy is to do what is safe for your plane.  A very slow plane that lands at 25 knots may be more like 1.5 or higher, especially on a windy day.
1.3 Vso is a fairly good approximation for a plane that stalls around 50 knots, approaching
at 65 knots.
Another consideration in approach is safely banking in the pattern.  Stall speed increases with bank angle as follows.
Load factor G = 1/(cos bank angle)
Stall Speed (Accelerated) = Vs x Square Root G
For 30 degree bank:  G = 1/.8662 = 1.155  (thought I had it here for a second!)
               Accelerated stall speed = Vs x 1.07
For 45 degree bank:  G = 1/.7071 = 1.414
               Accelerated stall speed = Vs x 1.18
For 60 degree bank:  G = 1/.5000 = 2.000
              Accelerated stall speed = Vs x 1.414
So we avoid steep turns in landing patterns as well!  Yet another reason to add safety margin
to approach speed.

You aren't wrong, but you did not answer his question.  Since, clearly, every situation is different as you've pointed out. Why is 1.3 the textbook number?

The point is textbook theory does not fly a plane.  And I would like to know which textbook you are referring to.  And yes, we have not discussed flaps yet.  But the point is there is enough variation to get qualified opinions and training to be safe for the type of aircraft one pilots.  Now the faster one gets, the farther 1.3 gets away from stall speed. Example stall at 100, 1.3 x 100 = 130.  Stall at 30, 1.3 x 30 = 39.  This can be crucial at slow speeds in wind.  So where do we get 1.3 ???

Where do we get 1.3 is the OP's question.

The "textbook" answer of either Vref or (1.3*Vs0) if Vref isn't published is found in the AIM. 5-4-7 first and second sentence regarding approach category of aircraft.

Ok, I'll go with that and a NOTAM for people who approach slower than trainers such as the Cessna 172.  See math in my edit, and thanks for getting me to dig a little more.

Even that portion of the AIM does not explain -- Why 1.3?  I would give my own answer, but I haven't because I don't know the answer to the specific, why?, question asked.  Otherwise, I would be giving an opinion-based guess without documentation, which isn't appropriate for this format.

Well, realizing there is not a universal approach speed is constructive.  I have listed several reasons why a pilot should at least be aware of this issue.  I hope my edits have helped.


text:
What should I do to become a pilot for skydivers, in France?
What are the steps needed to become a pilot that can transport skydivers?
I'm more specifically interested in the situation in Europe, France.
I would expect lessons / certifications, then more certification to accept passengers, then more certifications to be allowed to carry skydivers and let them jump. Also, medical examination, books, insurance, fees...
How much would it cost?
I'm more interested in the money amount spent usually observed than the theoretical price. I have a day job so I won't be able to easily spend all days of the week at the airport.
How long should I expect until I'm certificated?
Then, how often should I fly to stay current.
Obviously, there is the issue of practicing enough to be safe and the legal requirements to be allowed to fly with passengers.
I also expect to be required to be certificated with a specific level for the skydiving. Bonus points if you can answer that too.

I have seen this question about how much it cost to learn to fly, but it is less specific than my case. Still, many interesting points in its answers.

the core question seems to be, How different is the certification of a skydiving plane to a normal pilot license?

@ratchetfreak Actually, it sounds to me like the question is "How do I become a commercial pilot?"  :)

@ratchetfreak would I still need to be a commercial pilot if I'm not paid nor compensated to fly the aircraft (just doing it for the fun)? And in both case, still interested in the process.

@Guillaume In the US (I don't know EASA rules) you would still need a commercial pilot license if the operator is being paid for the flight (i.e. for a skydiving operation), even if they don't compensate you.  If you are just taking some friends up to jump on your own, and they aren't paying you or reimbursing you for the time on the airplane, then you can do it with just a private pilot license.

@Lnafziger makes sense ; thank you for the precision.

Short answer: you need a commercial pilot's license. The drop zone will provide the extra training, it takes about a day (I worked at a skydive center for 10 years)
However, since you seem to not have any kind of pilot's license right now (or you would know this already) I will add that it isn't a full-time job at any except the busiest drop zones. Our pilots usually worked for a couple of years to build time and then went on to other aviation jobs. During those 1-2 years they had other income - flying for us was mainly a way to log flying hours without having to rent aircraft.

To be clear, since the original question doesn't specify this, if you are just a pilot who transports skydivers and you're not getting paid for this and neither is the operator, you don't need a CPL. Basically, if you go and drop your friends for fun, you can do it with a PPL-A, provided you satisfy the minimum requirements set forth by your particular country, which comes down to a minimum amount of PIC hours.

You'll want to start by getting a private pilots license and then go on to get a commercial pilot's license. An instrument rating isn't required, but would be beneficial.
A private pilot's license (PPL) will cost you around \$8,000, commercial license (CPL) will be an additional \$17,000, and instrument ratings around \$6,000. One common method for gaining hours/pay is to become a certified flight instructor (CFI); this may cost you an additional \$7,000. Call you local flight school and ask for exact prices, but plan to spend 10% to 20% more than the listed price because you'll need additional hours to the bare minimum.
Getting a PPL and CPL will allow you to fly for skydiving operations. Federal regulations (14 CFR Part 119) describe the certification requirements for air carriers and commercial operators, but exempts skydiving flights operating within 25 miles of the departure airport. As a result, skydiving flights are conducted in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 105.
14 CFR Part 91

Allows skydivers to use the floor of an aircraft as a seat, provided that there is a seat belt for each skydiver to use.
Requires every reserve parachute on board to have been packed within the preceding 120 days.
Requires a transponder for flight at or above 10,000 MSL, an altitude commonly exceeded by most jump planes.

14 CFR Part 105

Requires skydivers to observe visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. Below 10,000 feet, the pilot must have three miles of visibility and at least 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud. At and above 10,000 feet, the rules require five miles of visibility and 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and one mile horizontally.
Holds the pilot responsible for jumps that create a hazard to air traffic or persons, or property on the ground.
Requires prior permission from an airport manager before jumping over or onto an airport.
Requires ATC authorization when jumping into Class A, B, C, or D airspace. Prior to jumping into Class E and G airspace, the appropriate ATC facility must simply be notified beforehand.
Requires radio communications with the appropriate ATC facility at least 5 minutes prior to the jump. This requirement is primarily intended to allow the jump pilot to receive information from ATC about known traffic in the area. It is best to make the call soon after takeoff for radar coverage.

Additional Information:

http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_normal.aspx?id=7721
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States#Commercial_pilot

Thank you :)  I never used nor seen a seatbealt while skydiving, even though we were sitting (packed) on the floor. Is this rule specific to the FAA and different in Europe?

This question was specifically tagged EASA-REGULATIONS and FRANCE so quoting $USD and FAA regulations is not really pertinent....


text:
Why aren't Biplanes designs used when size and wing span restrictions are involved?
This research paper shows that for a given aspect ratio and wing area, compared to a monoplane a biplane produced a better L/D. So, wouldn't it make more sense to manufacture biplanes for subsonic flight instead when size and wingspan restrictions are involved?

Without reading the 100+ pages, could you point to the section where it's claimed that biplanes produce better L/D than monoplanes? That claim runs contrary to what I've always understood. There's much more interface drag for a biplane, and the wings also interfere with each other. Both lead to more D for the same amount of L.

@KennSebesta, most of the paper just consists of appendices and the whole thing is just a wind tunnel test experiment, if you want the cliff notes for the lower L/D, check out the conclusion section.

Would it be beneficial for the Boeing 777x to have a biplane wing design? and Why are there no longer any biplanes?

So, is the research paper wrong when it claims that biplanes have a lower L/D for a given wing area and aspect ratio?

I don't think anyone here is going to read a random paper to refute it. It's entirely possible that the linked masters thesis highlights a very specific point where biplanes could conceivably do better. I think if you want an answer here, you need to rephrase the question with the specific point in question so we can address it.

Biplane airplanes do have a better L/D but this is true only when the wingspan must be kept short due to some other limitations.
If you attach a second wing to a monoplane then each wing must generate only ½ of the total lift; being the induced drag proportional to L² then each wing generates now only ¼ of induced drag; the total induced drag is therefore ¼+¼=½ of the monoplane case. Amazing result. Anyway induced drag is also inversely proportional to wingspan squared: the same reduction of ½ can be obtained simply increasing wingspan of some 40%. What's better depends on other constraints

@sophit actually a good answer if they reopen. A bi-plane configuration would also enable higher altitudes, as was found out in 1938.  Imagine a Concorde fuselage with 2 wings, perhaps looking a bit like this.


text:
Are scheduled Part 135 flights allowed at Teterboro (KTEB)?
The Port Authority states that “[A]s a reliever airport, it does not offer scheduled airline service,” however, it seems like a few companies offer scheduled flights (or so they advertise), albeit with private jets. Are scheduled Part 135 flights allowed at KTEB, or is this operation prohibited by some rule?

"It does not" and "it may not" do not mean the same thing...

Scheduled airline service would be part 121 operations. Part 135 is for charter services, and limited scheduled service with strict limits on number of passengers and cargo weight. Teterboro does allow unscheduled part 135 charter flights.

What about scheduled 135 flights (with the restrictions you mentioned)?

@CharlesNicholson For a definitive answer you would need to call them.


text:
What exactly do "commuter operations" mean under Part 135 in the FARs?
I am confused as to why very (seemingly) similar airlines operate under different FARs.
Southern Airways Express, doing business as Mokulele Airlines, operates as a Part 135 commuter airline in Hawaii. However, it seems like "regular" Southern Airways Express in the mainland United States sells tickets under Part 380 and operates under Part 135 (that same "public charter" scheme that JSX Airlines also conducts).
Are "commuter operations" essentially small-scale Part 121 operations with restrictions (i.e., seats and payload), or do all Part 135 operations that operate scheduled flights need to conduct public charters under Part 380?

Short answer from FAR 298

Commuter air carrier   means an air carrier as established by §
298.3(b) that carries passengers on at least five round trips per week on at least one route between two or more points according to its
published flight schedules that specify the times, days of the week,
and places between which those flights are performed.

(b) There is hereby established a classification of air carriers,
designated as “commuter air carriers,” which directly engage in the
air transportation of persons, property or mail, and which:
(1) Do not directly or indirectly utilize large aircraft in air
transportation;
(2) Do not hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity;
(3) Carry passengers on at least five round trips per week on at least
one route between two or more points according to its published flight
schedules that specify the times, days of the week, and places between
which those flights are performed;
(4) Have and maintain in effect liability insurance coverage in
compliance with the requirements set forth in part 205 of this chapter
and have and maintain a current certificate of insurance evidencing
such coverage on file with the Department;
(5) Have and maintain in effect and on file with the Department a
signed counterpart of Agreement 18900 (OST Form 4523) and comply with
all other requirements of part 203 of this chapter; and
(6) Hold a Commuter Air Carrier Authorization issued in accordance
with subpart E of this part.

Almost all public carrier operations are under part 119, which specifies certification requirements with reference to 121, 135, etc. Public, meaning they have many customers as opposed to a negotiated contract for special services.
Part 135 operations are essentially small in nature, there are several sub-categories of 135 operations from an owner-operator up to large fleets of small airplanes. The exact restrictions will depend on the sort of flights, being on-demand or regularly scheduled(5 or more per week). A 135 with a part 298 authorization is an air-taxi and may have more than 5 trips per week per city-pair.
Large-aircraft operations will be 121(scheduled public direct operations) or 125(private. eg a corporate 737 moving employees)
Part 380 operations are non-scheduled(by definition, though they likely have a set departure date and time.) "public charter flights". 380 is intended for the indirect carrier, also called a charter organizer which acts as a third party between passengers and operators of aircraft on a whole-flight basis.  This is a company that arranges charter flights and sells tickets on those flights but does not generally directly operate the aircraft. Although both halves, indirect organizer and direct operator, may in some cases be owned by the same company they are required to be financially separated units. Passengers of 380 flights must sign a notice explicitly indicating that this is not a normal scheduled carrier operation(121/135). Regularly flown part 380 flights of part 135 size aircraft may need a part 298 authorized direct operator.
Administratively a 135 has a few less required company officers(legally responsible parties) and simplified expectations for their operation specifications. As compared to 121.
See FAA Advisory Circular AC_120-49A for more guidance on the certificate application and qualification requirements of 121 and 135.
From an FAA letter of legal interpretation:

Section 380.2 defines a "U.S. public charter operator" as an indirect
air carrier that is authorized to engage in the formation of groups
for transportation on public charters. Section 380.2 also defines a
"public charter" as a one-way or round-trip charter flight to be
performed by one or more direct air carriers that is arranged and
sponsored by a charter operator. Also, §380.2 states "a charter flight
is a flight operated under the terms of a charter contract between a
direct air carrier and its customers. It does not include scheduled
air transportation, scheduled foreign air transportation, or
nonscheduled cargo air transportation." All public charter passengers
must sign an operator participant contract (§380.32) acknowledging
that they are being transported on a charter as opposed to a scheduled
flight. So, although the operations may look like scheduled
operations, the passengers are treated as charter passengers in an
on-demand operation.

So a Part 135 commuter carrier is essentially a small-scale scheduled airline with a few less requirements than Part 121?

135 use small aircraft, based on seats and payload. 135 may be scheduled("commuter") or on-demand depending on the specifics of the operation. 121 use large aircraft and they are sheduled or "supplemental" (charter)
Unfortunately, a lot of aviation regulation has origins in the 1930s when socialism was still taken seriously and on the rise at the federal level so there is a pile of arbitrary bureaucratic nonsense(of questionable constitutionality, but hasn't been challenged), and fat books have been written to help operators sort through the legal mess and determine how they can do business.

There was a time when the federal gov assigned routes to operators and pre-approved prices and schedules. Those airlines were then given subsidies if the route-fare combination was not sufficient to cover costs. It had a very mercantilist national-socialist vibe and was full of favoritism and political chicanery.


text:
Could a trim system conceivably manipulate only primary surfaces?
Most airplanes' trim systems manipulate a tab associated with a primary surface. For example, a pitch trim tab (secondary surface) is attached to the elevators (primary surface) and will change the airplane's pitch characteristics. Could a trim system that only moves the primary surface work?
Note: Such a system would probably work better in a fly-by-wire airplane where there is no physical connection between the control yoke/stick and control surfaces. If they were connected, the yoke/stick would move along with the trim, and that seems unpractical.

Most FBW controlled aircrafts trim with the entire surface (just as you observed). Look at f35, f18 or Eurofighter, I believe the A320 also has such a trim system. I cannot comments about GA however, they mostly have no FBW, but perhaps there is a mechanical way?

This answer: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15268/how-does-trim-work-on-an-a320, nicht also be of interest

Regarding your last comment, in case of the trim tab the yokes neutral position also changes with trim.

This is actually more common even in GA aircraft than it sounds.  The Cirrus SR20 and SR22 use electrically actuated spring cartridges that act directly on the primary surfaces, and can be used for backup pitch and roll control if the primary controls suffer a failure that does not jam the control surface.  I was tempted to add yet another answer but this info is better edited into an already existing one.

I assume by "primary surface" you mean the elevator, not the stabilizer, so we are not talking about moveable stabilizers.
Most gliders with stabilzer/elevators, and a lot of homebuilts and ultralights, (and a few production power planes like the Piper Pawnee ag plane) use bungee springs as the sole method of applying trim forces via the elevator.  The spring is linked into the control circuit, like someone holding a clothesline to pull it toward one pulley or the other (or elsewhere in the linkage to do the same thing).  When you move the trim control, you're moving the "relaxed" position of the bungee spring.
If you are on the ground, and you move the trim control without holding the stick, the stick will move back and forth with the trim control as it follows the unloaded position of the spring. When you apply, say, nose up trim in the air, the effect is identical to hooking an elastic band anchored to the seat to the stick itself to apply back pressure for you.
In another variation, some power planes, notably the Piper Super cub, use both an adjustable stabilizer moved by a jackscrew, AND a passive, non adjustable spring bungee within the tail assembly, that applies tension that tends to keep the elevator aligned with the stabilizer chord wise. This improves the trimmable range achievable by the jackscrew system without having to make the stabilizer bigger (if you see a Super Cub parked without the controls being locked, you'll notice the elevator sags just below neutral instead of dropping all the way down - that's the internal bungee holding it up).
Now when you see the term bungee, an elastic shock cord you buy at the hardware store comes to mind, but a bungee in an airplane can be made from a rubber shock cord, axial springs doing the same thing, or springs inside a housing with internal linkages and an external lever that provides the springy element to connect to the control system (the Cirrus line uses such spring bungee-box units for trim).
It's not trim per se, but on some jets with hydraulic controls that need artificial pitch feel, a box with internal springs, cams, and levers called a pitch feel bungee unit actually provides the pitch force you feel at the stick.
Anyway,in the several dozen types of power planes and gliders I've flow over the years, I've found that cockpit adjustable tabs always provided more precise and responsive trim control than bungee devices, so I don't think of bungee trims as optimal, but in a design where tabs are impractical, it's a useable alternative.

John, per my comment to the OP, your answer is probably the place I would have added the Cirrus family as examples of electricially-activated, mechanical spring trim systems that act directly on the elevator and ailerons, without tabs.  In the case of the Cirrus it is a spring cartridge and not a bungee.

In the trade we call those bungees as well. I'll add something to  cover your comment.

Yes.
Gliders usually have a coil spring in the pitch linkage, and if the horizontal tail is of the fully flying type, this spring will affect the zero-force position of that surface. Changing the attachment point of the spring to the airplane structure by moving the trim lever will adjust the spring force, so the zero-force incidence of the tail surface can be adjusted.
By adding a bit of camber to the horizontal tail a speed-dependent trim moment can be added such that the spring force will become larger than the aerodynamic moment at lower speed and re-trim the tail incidence in pitch-down direction (and vice versa). This is done to artificially adjust the stick force over speed. By combining spring and camber, this allows to tailor the stick force precisely. Add a bobweight in a vertically-moving part of the linkage (trivial in T-tails) and you can even tailor the load-factor dependent stick force gradient. The spring will cancel the 1g contribution of the bobweight.
These coil springs help to make very simple, but widely adjustable trim mechanisms.

When we talk about airliners they all trim the stabilizer with the primary surface.
See this drawing from US patent US6851648B2:

The ball screw (6) turns moving the collar (8) up and down. This moves the primary surface around the pivot point (4).
You can even see this from the outside when looking at the fuselage in the area of the horizontal stabiliser leading edge:

Forward is to the right. You can see the trim markings on the fuselage indicating the trim range. (Source: Wikipedia)
And no – the yoke doesn't move when trimming the stabiliser. Even on non-fly-by-wire aircraft. You just need to make sure to get all controls routed in or near the pivot point.

On these larger jets, the stabilizer trim will move the entire surface, but the elevators themselves will continue centered in relation to the stabilizer they are attached to (unless moved by the pilot), right?

@CharlesNicholson yes, the elevator itself stays at the same angle to the stabilizer. Those two are independent of each other.


text:
What is the difference between the two fields on the bottom half of the upper ECAM display on Airbus airplanes?

Note the two fields with green text on the bottom half of the display, separated by a white line. During abnormal conditions, the left portion may show "ECAM actions," but I do not know what the logic behind the right portion is when it shows, for example, "LAND ASAP." Not sure what the logic is during normal conditions, either.

The two fields at the bottom are explained in the A320 FCOM as follows:

The lower part, which is dedicated to ECAM messages, is divided into
two parts of several lines each.
Left part:

Primary or independent warnings and cautions, or
Memo information

Right part:

Title of system affected by a primary or independent warning or caution in case of overflow on the left part, or
Secondary failure, or
Memo, or
Special lines (such as "AP OFF", "LAND ASAP")

(Airbus A320 FCOM - Indicating and Recording Systems - ECAM Description - Indications on E/WD)
The picture you show contains only memos both on the left and the right:

Memos appear in the lower part of the E/WD. They are normally in green, but may be
amber in abnormal situtations.
Memos list functions or systems that are temporarily used in normal operations.
Each chapter of the "Warning and Cautions" section of this manual lists memo messages.

The FCOM shows several other examples:

Independent Failure

If there are too many ECAM messages for the amount of space available in the lower part
of the E/WD, a green arrow appears at the bottom of the display, pointing down to show
that the information has overflowed off the screen. The pilot can scroll down to view
additional messages by pushing the CLR pushbutton on the ECAM control panel (on the
pedestal, just below the lower ECAM DU).

Primary and Secondary Failure

The ECAM DU displays a primary failure as a boxed title.
It identifies a secondary failure by putting a star in front of the title of the affected system.
Note: The DU displays the overflow symbol, if primary or secondary failures overflow. In
case of ELEC EMER CONFIG, the secondary failures are inhibited.

TO and LDG Memos

During the takeoff and landing phases, the right side of the memo area displays specific T.O.
INHIBIT or LDG INHIBIT (magenta) memos.
Takeoff and landing memos are displayed, as follows, during the related flight phases:

* This line disappears when the test is completed. It is replaced by "TO CONFIG
NORMAL", if aircraft configuration is correct.
The test is requested again, if the configuration becomes abnormal.

So, the "no smoking" and "seat belts" text in the image refer to TO memos being completed? Also, what does the text on the right field refer to (as it is not an overflow or secondary failure)?

@CharlesNicholson No, the TO memos are special, they always look like in the picture from the FCOM. Your picture shows regular memos, not related to TO or LDG. I'm not sure why some memos are shown on the left and some on the right. The FCOM does not say...


text:
Would it be practical for airports to adopt new terminologies to avoid changing parallel runways' numbers?
Los Angeles International Airport (KLAX), for example, has four parallel runways. Since there are only three designators for parallel runways (L, R, and C), two runways are offset by one unit (i.e., 6L/R, 7L/R, 24L/R, and 25L/R). To preserve the runways' actual headings, could airports/aviation authorities adopt terminologies such as "port" and "starboard" for pairs of parallel runways? In this example, there would be runways 7P/S, 7L/R, 25P/S, and 25L/R.

It is an interesting question.  The idea of offsetting the number for more than three parallel numbers also is true for multiple airports in an area with "parallel" runways.  Consider KDMA and KTUS.  They are 4NM miles apart and the runways are on a magnetic heading of 123°.  KDMA has a 12/30 runway assignment while KTUS has a 11/29 L/R assignment.   Interestingly, this is documented in the US TERPS.

The current system of grouping parallel runways in sets of three at maximum is the simplest and most comprehensible way to designate runways.
TL;DR
The accurate correlation of runway numbers and their actual headings is of little importance, even more so when compared to the necessity of avoiding confusion.
Left - Center - Right leaves pretty much no chance for error(*, and is adequate for the vast majority of cases.
More in depth:
As for the number part: all pilots know that runways are numbered according to their magnetic heading, which is rounded to the nesrest ten and then truncated. Since the magnetic poles move, it may very well be that the actual runway heading has changed over time such that a runway 21 may actually have a heading of 217. Because of this, pilots are not expecting the number to match the heading with great acuracy.
So: "runway 21 right" is very simple, efficient and clear way to designate a runway the heading of which is about 210 degrees and which is to the right of a parallel runway. In the case of four or more parallel runways (KORD has six), it is equally efficient and clear to divide them into two groups. Having four, let alone six, parallel runways with the same number, but more letters to name them would only add the chance of confusion.
The current system has the benefit of subsequent numbers being clearly distingquishable phonetically. There is very little chance of mixing up, seven with six, for example.
And as a final note: the current system is also distinct from other phraseology used in airports / -fields. The taxiways are named with letters, so using that option for runways would add the risk of miscommunication.

people with difficulties distinguishing left and right will not end up as pilots or air traffic controller.

Furthermore, consider this: How many airports are there with more than three parallel runways? (10 with more than three, 3 with more than four, none with more than five) How many of those are within the same jurisdiction? (The FAA has the most with 7) How much trouble would it be to invent a new convention only for those 7 airports?

Chicago O'Hare has 8 rwys, 6 of which are parallel. Not sure though if all of them are currently operational. Just sat on a plane there that was part of a three parallel approach flock


text:
Are any agile (aerobatic) private jets produced?
If you look at the car industry there are luxury comfort brand like Rolls Royce or Bentley but super expensive racing cars are probably even more popular. They offer limited comfort, are not practical, almost not usable on normal roads, not very reliable and offer terrible fuel consumption. But still everybody dreams about them and a lot of companies try to manufacture.
Business jet can offer luxury and comfort but what to do if you want some excitement or performance? Why are there no jets with massive after burning engines with thrust bigger than weight that can climb straight up and do several G? Something like a cross-breed between a Gulfstream and an F15? Maybe it's good business case to manufacture something like this?

that can climb straight up and do several G - why?

@Simon The question is: Why not? I'd like to fly in such a thing ;)

Several wealthy individuals privately buy retired military jets. (With weapons and other classified equipment removed of course.)  I doubt there's much of a case for designing fast jets for solely private use though.

The french/german AlphaJet is used by RedBull, but they didn't produce any new ones. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Jet    Probably you need not only money but also "contacts" as well, because they are still in use by different operators.

Who says that expensive cars are bought for the driving pleasure? Their main purpose is to show off, and that is much easier if they are parked in the garage next to your house, and not on an airfield miles away.

@PeterKämpf Once you are rich enough you could buy a nice house with an airfield attached. Then shiny aircraft lives next to house. Problem solved. :)

If I owned a private jet I wouldn't want to ruin the fine glasses by throwing the aircraft around, nor would I fly it myself. If you're rich enough to buy a private jet, you'd just buy an aerobatic aircraft/warbird surely? If I had the kind of money to own a private jet, you can be damn sure I'd have bought a Spitfire first.

You can buy a Mig but can have a bit of trouble importing it to usa

This question brought to mind the Bede BD-10. It was intended to be a supersonic kit plane, but they never worked the bugs out of it. Notably, the vertical fins tended to break off.

The reason these aren't built is that there's no market for them. Sure, there's loads of people who would love one of these (including me) but they would be incredibly expensive to buy and operate, far out of reach for anyone but the extremely wealthy.
At the airfield I fly from there are Jet Provosts, a 50's era jet trainer, available. These old, not particularly fast or agile jets cost about 1000 USD per  hour to fly. I've seen Mig-21 (certainly fast with lots of Gs) training for about $4500 per hour, which gives you an idea of the running costs for a fast, exciting jet.
The existing market of people who can afford this is already supplied by military surplus jets. These run from trainers like the L-39 and Gnats to fighters and bombers like Migs, an F-104, hawker hunter, there's even a privately owned Harrier. These don't cost that much to buy considering what one would cost new, and there's plenty of them on the market, so there's no call for new builds.

But is the cost alone an obstacle? As rich people get richer and richer it doesn't matter. Probably there is no any reason to buy Bugatti Veyron and drive 400km/h with service costs comparable with jet fighter but it's still very popular and all examples were sold out.

@Andrius Cost is not the obstacle. The lack of market is. 100% of very rich people know how to drive a car. But only 1 out of thousands of very rich people know how to fly at the level needed for your activity. So where is the market in that???

As @JanHudec says, part of the reason rich people buy extremely expensive cars is to show off. You can't really show off much in a "luxury fighter jet".

A (demilitarized) fighter jet is still several times more expensive than Veyron in purchase. But it's thousands of times more expensive in maintenance. Rich people stay rich because they don't buy things that would ruin them.

It's not true! L-39 can cost much less than $100.000

A dozen or so years ago I remember seeing someone trying to dump a bunch of - supposedly factory refurbished - Mig-17's for $20k each.

@Andrius See his point about the maintenance. Buying a (used) airplane isn't nearly as expensive as flying it and keeping it airworthy. The fuel alone would cost a fortune for a high-performance fighter-like jet. Also, your question was about why new planes are not designed, not about old ones. Look up the cost of a new fighter and you'll have your answer. You'd literally need to be a billionaire to be able to afford most of them (assuming that you don't want to spend more than a third of your net worth just in the original purchase price.)

Airbus supports Aerion AS2. I don't think it's going to be cheap. Why don't take 30 years old technology of Fourth-generation jet fighter and instead military payload add seating for several passengers?  Should be rather cheap as all those radars, sensors and military computers are really expensive

I wouldn't describe the AS2 as "aerobatic" though. And to be fair, I'm sure if you have enough money there's a government somewhere around the world who'll sell you a surplus F-16 or something. You could've bought a Corvette (ship) a couple of years ago if you'd had the spare $100 million or so Brunei was asking for it... You could've had three, in fact, if you had a spare $300M.